Farm Bureau: Don’t kill old farm bills while passing new one

Leaving the old farm bill laws in place could result in doubling the retail price of milk and force the government to buy up domestic dairy products, but don’t get rid of them when passing a new farm bill, two big agriculture groups warn in separate letters to recently named conferees.

The American Farm Bureau Federation — the largest U.S. group representing and lobbying for farmers — says in a letter sent Tuesday it is pleased that both the Senate and House have named conferees to craft a unified farm bill to replace the one that expired Sept. 30 and is sending each of those conferees a letter with the group’s priorities. Both Senate and House farm bill versions contain plenty of good support programs for the nation’s farmers, the Farm Bureau notes.

Text Size

-

+

reset

But there are also many troubling aspects that the group would prefer to see left on the cutting floor when the conferees are done.

In particular, one of the Farm Bureau’s top two “overreaching concerns” is that the conferees will eliminate the permanent farm bill laws created in 1938 and 1949 that remain inactive but on the books. Permanent law — provisions of which would have the effect of doubling retail milk prices by forcing the government to buy up domestic dairy products — is necessary to pressure Congress into reauthorizing a new farm bill every five years, the Farm Bureau advises.

“Repealing those acts and making the 2013 farm bill commodity title permanent law could make it difficult in the future to generate sufficient political pressure to adjust the commodity safety net provisions should conditions in production agriculture change,” according to the letter, which is signed by Bob Stallman, president of the Farm Bureau.

That provision, which is only in the House version of the farm bill, would replace the 1938 and 1949 permanent laws with the commodity title contained in the 2013 farm bill.

The National Farmers Union echoes AFBF’s demands in a separate letter to conferees.

“Rescinding permanent law would remove the incentive to update and reauthorize the farm bill, leaving conservation, renewable energy, rural development, research, trade and other provisions without authority to continue,” says NFU President Roger Johnson.

The second main concern the Farm Bureau points out to conferees is the threat of separating food stamp and other nutrition policy reform in the farm bill. A provision in the House farm bill would ensure that the nutrition title of the 2013 farm bill expires two years earlier, in 2016, than the rest of the five-year bill, which would expire in 2018.

“We also fear that a farm bill without a meaningful nutrition title will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House and Senate to reach agreement on a final version that can be signed by the president,” Stallman says in AFBF’s letter. “We urge you to move forward on a unified farm bill that continues the ‘marriage’ between the nutrition and farm communities and our constituents.”

The Farm Bureau is also telling conferees they should support a controversial measure in the House bill that would prohibit states from exerting their farming rules on agricultural products that come from other states. This controversial provision was added to the House bill via an amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the House farm bill conferees, who told POLITICO he’s optimistic the measure will make it into the final iteration of the 2013 farm bill.

Stallman, in the Farm Bureau’s letter, asks lawmakers to “remain firm” in keeping the provision that “prohibits unscientific state barriers to interstate commerce when those barriers are based solely on production practices. This would not impact a state’s right to set its own production standards. It simply prohibits a state from forcing its standards on imports from other states.”

The Farm Bureau also asks conferees to keep subsidy caps on farmers as loose as possible. Subsidy program benefits are denied to farmers with a three-year adjusted gross income of more than $950,000 in the House farm bill. The cutoff level in the Senate is $750,000.

“We oppose means testing completely but prefer the House to the Senate provisions,” Stallman says.

But this is a key area where the demands of the Farm Bureau split from NFU, which strongly supports the caps on subsidies.

“Keep limitations on eligibility and the amount of farm payments individuals or farms may receive,” the NFU tells conferees. “This is included in both versions of the farm bill, but we prefer the Senate version, which includes stricter guidelines.”

Though both the House and Senate have named their farm bill conferees, a schedule has yet to be published for the committee’s meetings.